2019 Ohio 4352
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Deandre Taylor was indicted on six counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor (R.C. 2907.04(A)) with age-enhancement specifications; he pleaded guilty to an amended indictment charging two counts of gross sexual imposition (R.C. 2907.05).
- At sentencing the trial court announced a 24-month prison term, stated the sentences would be consecutive, and orally explained findings supporting consecutivity.
- The court’s journal entry recited separate 12‑month sentences for each count to be served consecutively, but the oral pronouncement did not state per‑count terms and instead imposed a single "blanket" 24‑month sentence.
- Taylor appealed, raising four assignments of error: (1) sentence contrary to law; (2) erroneous no‑contact order as a condition of mandatory postrelease control; (3) erroneous imposition of consecutive sentences; (4) erroneous imposition of a blanket 24‑month sentence.
- The state conceded the second and fourth errors; the appellate court held the blanket oral sentence was invalid under Ohio precedent, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing. Remaining assignments were rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sentence contrary to law | State argued sentence lawful as pronounced and reflected in journal entry | Taylor argued oral sentencing was deficient and inconsistent with law | Moot after vacatur/remand on Issue 4 |
| 2. No‑contact order on postrelease control | State maintained no‑contact condition appropriate | Taylor argued court lacked authority to impose that condition as part of mandatory PRC | State conceded error; issue treated as conceded/moot on remand |
| 3. Consecutive sentences | State argued consecutive terms were supported by findings | Taylor argued sentencing procedure and findings were defective | Moot after vacatur/remand on Issue 4 |
| 4. Blanket 24‑month sentence (dispositive) | State initially defended sentence but later conceded error | Taylor argued trial court imposed an invalid blanket sentence by failing to pronounce separate terms per count | Court held the oral pronouncement was a defective "blanket" sentence; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Saxon, 846 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio 2006) (trial court must consider each offense individually and impose a separate sentence for each offense)